Bravo!

Sigh. When we let ourselves be sucked into pissing matches over which party has most scandals we all lose. INDEPENDENTLY of anything the Democrats are doing or have ever done, this administration is up to some heavily evil greedy power grabs that stand to do the U.S. great violence as a nation and to its citizens as individuals. To not be outraged or to shout down others' outrage on the subject because the Democrats have their share of scandals is to reduce public discourse to spectator sports where the only thing that matters is whether Your Side has the higher score, independent of that score having any meaning in the real world or for your life.

(The Democrats, of course, are just as bad, and I was as thoroughly revolted by their dismissals when they were on top.)

As the world's current 800-lb. gorilla, where the U.S. sits is too important to be treated as spectator sports. How 'bout we forget playing sides, and actually hold _everyone_ responsible for their actions without acting like one side's scandals are somehow excused by the other's?

He forgot Clinton+missile+China+waiver and Clinton+missile+ Pakistan.

If you are going to attack an administration, go after the real culprit. Our deficit and lack of defense are a direct result of Clinton selling us down the river.

I've read each of the accounts mentioned by the pimpernel many times over the past year. The Rumsfeld bit was in the NYTimes and just about everywhere else. The Haliburton stuff was in fewer places but still made it out there. Of course Cheany's responsibility and involvement is obfuscated, so it is unclear as to what exactly he did in the deal. (besides being in charge of the company.)

  The problem with all of this is that we are being led to war with a country that poses no threat to us* by an administration that stands to profit by the war. (The Bush admins are forever tied to Iraq and the fact that Iraq supposedly has more oil than Suadi Arabi would make them an attractive target to oil men from Texas.)

While my political leanings are obvious, don't get me wrong. I am all for hunting down terrorists like Kurt Russel hunted down the Cowboys in Wyatt Earp. The problem is that the Saudi's are supposedly the ones funding all of this terrorism and we already have their oil. Why invade them?

The problem with the Republicans is that they have an agenda that has little to do with the well being of the American (or any) people. The problem with the Democrats is that they care about everyone, and subsequently have a ton of unrelated agendas that can't be implemented. Add to it that Clinton/Gore sold out to the corporations and the dems are totally ineffective. Nice choice evil overlords or Gomer Pyle.

I like the rants. They give me a chance to check out some things on my own, raise some interesting questions, and despite the partisanship, are marginally more clever than most anonymous screeds.

At this point, however, we could find out that Bush and Hussein are bowling buddies and it wouldn't make a lick o' difference.

Come ye masters of war.

Edited by author 01-17-2003 03:59 AM
1. Pimpernel's rants seem just about as believable to me as an American citizen being labeled "Enemy Combatant" and being locked up indefinitely with no charge of treason and no trial.

2. Airing/publication by a large news agency lends a great deal of credibility, but absence of such publication proves little.

You're not perfect, nor am I. We fail and succeed. The world will move forword. Deal with it!!

Too bad it didn't occur to Democrats of the 80s to discredit the Contras by calling them "terrorists". Just whose mind is this letter going to change? It is only going to make the minority of leftists who read it even more self-righteous. Ranting, desperate screeds aren't going to change anything, especially ones so blatantly partisan.

The missing link:

1,2,3,4

;-)

Dan Z., the article specifically implied that Republicans were the problem, mentioning nothing but errors by Republicans, and concluding: "For their own sake, please encourage your local democratic party representatives to grow a spine. Quickly."

Ian, don't give up; too many of us have. First, there's nothing terribly wrong with an anonymous screed that makes some statements and then encourages you to research the veracity of that information yourself. Hell if you do the research, then perhaps you can refute the statements, right? Or maybe you find them more believable as you dig around.

The last thing I meant by "wherever we might find it" was the anonymous screed itself. What I meant was wherever your research may lead you.

Reference: Straw Man Argument.

"Wherever we might find it," huh?

Such as in anonymous screeds wherein the results of two- and three-word Internet searches are held up as the standard of proof?

Yeah sure, you betcha.

I give up.

Please, my friends, can we not resolve this in an intelligent and peaceful manner?

Uh, sure, some guy. The Chinese would still be armed with bamboo spears if it weren't for Clinton. Uh-huh.

Correction: Poindexter sold TOW missiles to Iran.

If you're on the west coast, you now have chinese ICBMs pointed at your head thanks to Clinton and his buttboy at Loral.

Could go on and on like this, eh. . .